Madras High Court
Nirmala vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 18 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2459 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2459 of 2024
Nirmala ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat., Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section),
Avadi, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Avadi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in memo no
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2459 of 2024
80/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.06.2024 and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Gokul, son of
Ramesh aged about 28 years, petitioner's son now confined at Central
Prison, puzhal, chennai before this court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thompson
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.80/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The special report relied by the detaining authority, which is
enclosed in the typeset of paper is undated. Thus, the detenue has been
deprived of submitting representation in an effective manner.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'1. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5]
of the Constitution, observed that the detenue should be afforded an
opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention
Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which
can be understood by the detenue, is imperative. In the said context, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC
journal} as follows:
“9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been
relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds
of detention and a document which finds a mere
reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the
non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in
the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to
continued detention, the detenu need not show that
any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the
non-supply of such a document would amount to
denial of the right of being communicated the
grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of
making an effective representation against the order.
11999 2 SCC 413
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
But it would not be so where the document merely
finds a reference in the order of detention or among
the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
complaint of non-supply of document has to be
supported by prejudice caused to him in making an
effective representation. What applies to a document
would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy
of the document in the language known to and
understood by the detenu, should the document be in
a different language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view,
the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English
document, on the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We,
therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith
unless she is required to be detained in any other
case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second respondent in proceedings No.80/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
21.06.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenue viz., Gokul, son of Ramesh aged about 28 years, petitioner's son
now confined at Central Prison, puzhal, chennai, is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
18.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat., Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section),
Avadi, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Avadi District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
